This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of
facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP
Judges Forum.
Session 6: Rules of Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation
Federal
High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division [2022]: Technocrat Consult
and IT Limited v Central Bank of Nigeria et al., Suit No.
FHC/L/CS/1519/2012
Date
of judgment: May 13, 2022
Issuing
authority: Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial
Division
Level
of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type
of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>
Subject
matter: Enforcement of IP and Related Laws; Patents
(Inventions)
Plaintiff:
Technocrat Consult and IT Limited
Defendant: Central Bank of Nigeria; Chartered Institute of
Bankers of Nigeria; Ernst & Young Nigeria; Dermalog Identification System
GMBH; Registrar of Patents and Designs (joined by order of the court on January
18, 2019)
Keywords:
Evidence, Burden of proof, Nature of evidence required to prove patent
infringement, Patentability
Basic facts: Technocrat
Consult and IT Limited (the Plaintiff) holds a registered patent for a Portable
Telecommunication (Mobile Client) Device used in biometric identification.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ proposed
implementation of a biometric solution, application servers, database servers
and fingerprint devices across all Central Bank branches in Nigeria infringed
its registered patent. The Plaintiff claimed
monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain the Defendants from
infringing his registered patent by importing, manufacturing or distributing
the application servers and fingerprint devices or any devices or machine
within the scope of the said patent.
Plaintiff claimed 8 billion Naira in
damages.
Expert evidence was led by Plaintiff and the 3rd
Defendant (Ernst & Young Nigeria).
Held: The Federal High Court,
Lagos Judicial Division dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.
Relevant holdings in relation to rules of evidence in
intellectual property litigation: The Federal High Court
held that registration of a patent does not confer patentability under Nigerian
law. Rather, patentability is a question of fact to be determined by the
Court.
The Federal High Court found that
Plaintiff’s patent certificate does not cover the type of biometric information
system contemplated by the Defendants’ proposed implementation of its biometric
solution. As the Plaintiff’s process relates only to fingerprints and
photographs, it does not fall within the definition of a biometric
identification system.
Thus, Plaintiff did not establish that his
process was stolen or that the product complained about was within the scope of
Plaintiff’s patent.
Relevant
legislation:
Patents and Designs Act (Chapter 344)